English wiki Unsourced BLP Drama Pragmatic Review

Few comments. I will make few explanations on the BLP issue first before going back to dispute resolution process and baseline quality article.

What's mean really fixing an unsourced BLP article and by extension any unsourced article?

The level Zero of sourcing is just prove et verify the existence of the subject covered by the article and nothing more. Removing craps and libelous contents is optional. Asserting notability using sources is optional.

The premises were more fix the unsourced BLP to get rid of the potent craps and libelous contents which hurt Wikipedia badly and to get higher quality BLP articles.

Given the context where some editors fear to run out of time (Thanks the Big stick), expecting them to go further in the level of sourcing and thus doing more qualitative edits is worth Facepalm.

From there you can foresee part of the objections raised in the RFC. Unsourced BLP is a real issue but the issue fixed by sourcing them is clearly not the one "stated" initialy.

-

In term of process building:

1. Using a non adequate rational for a real problem

   => People will make you know that your rational is flawed. That a lot of energy wasted in discussions on what brought you on the negotiation table and not on the negotiation itself.

2. ArbCom should have done its best to be perceived neutral by both party and yet very firm that the issue must be solved but the motion could be interpreted to support one group.

   => The perceived "slant" toward one group may lead to an absence of perceived "Neutral" party which job is to regroups the proposals and views into something cohesive & workable based on support and consensus. This will delay even more the final compromise redaction due to possible redactors recused for alleged PoV pushing.

3. Centralized negotiation but decentralized execution (bad side)

   Projects are already anticipating the compromise so editors from those projects may not feel in hurry to enact a compromise. Any additional delay is more time for their project to be prepared. (This one apply to BIG negotiations with lot of ramifications)

In term of baseline quality:

1. Sourcing unsourced article is nothing more than proving the existence of a subject. (English Wikipedia had +260K of those)
2. Quality edits is unlikely when using constraint like deletion. Editors will aim for quantity of edits to jury ring as many articles as possible.
3. Improving Wikipedia from the bottom is not worth recognition (current etat de fait).

I'm sure i missed some of those.